PDA

View Full Version : Can (non-super heavy) Dreadnought-type walkers make it back into the game?



Greyhound
09-06-2015, 02:35
My friend and I were discussing the alleged boost Space marine walkers will have with an extra attack, and how far down the selection list dreadnoughts are these days.
With the Kastellan robots released as MC, eldar walkers being MC and Taus being MC, it feels like we have only a few armies still dragging Assault-machine designed as walkers in their codex.
I would like to discuss the re-institution of Dreadnoughts. This includes:

- Space Marines of all colours (including the ones with spikes and slime)
- Orks deff dread

I've ignored/excluded
- AM Sentinels, Skitari's ironstriders, Killa kans even as those are light armoured (fast sometimes) shooting platforms.
- Onager. Although they fit the AV12 of dreadnoughts, they lack the melee weapons and assault design

-----------------------------------------------

Assault units need 2 things (and/or)
- Speed and ability to get in your face, which does not fit so much the dreadnought design,
- Resilience, which in the fluff defined them as perfectly suited to take on cramped space, breaking through wall and shielding the troops behind them

The dreadnoughts have:
- No speed, no ability to move through terrain. I think that potentially they could get move through cover to represent how they walk through walls, and flatten trees in their walk.
- No Resilience, with most AV12 vehicles these days being torn appart in close range where those beast WANT to be.

One of the reason why MC are far superior is because you need more than one shot to take them down - hence requiring shooting focus.
Hitting a dreadnought is super easy as they can't hide (too big), will be in the open (no one wants to move 2" in ruins because of a bad roll).
The penetration roll is pretty much guaranteed if you apply the right weapons, anything armourbane ST5+ is going through it, and all armies have a range of options to rip apart light armoured vehicles.
After that it's just 3HP to strip, or a 5/6+ if you have dedicated anti-armour.

We are left with 3 options:
1) leave as is, and just reduce cost/ pile on benefits through formations (a la dread mob)
2) increase durability through +1 HP, and some -1 to vehicle damage table to prevent early explosions
3) move them all to MC.

I am intrigued to see if others see the dreadnoughts as a thing of the past, or also hope to see them come back.

Wesser
09-06-2015, 06:42
There's the Maulerfiend... that one is fast

Dreadnoughts are great as a concept, but the problem with walkers such as Dreadnoughts and Defilers are that they the pay through the nose for versatility. Shooting have climbed so much in power that casual assault units don't cut it anymore. Essentially Dreads are paying a premium for some very modest assault capability that's highly situational.

If Dreads cold have 2 heavy weapons while keeping the powerfist it could fill a role similar to the one the Defiler have. Long-range support vehicle that can handle itself in CC. The Defiler would have a real niche if it was 40-50 points cheaper and had a better model

Sir Didymus
09-06-2015, 08:10
There really is no reason anymore for having two separate damage systems, as they're now so mixed up.

Should you want vehicles to be immune to small arms fire ( which is just about the only thing, the vehicle damage system brings to the game ), you could just as well invent a special ability (Your puny guns are no match for my mighty armor model is immune to any weapon with S4 or less) - which would just help streamline the game. You could even add an extra level with with immunity for S7 or below for Land Raiders and their ilk. And stuff like melta could just get an S bonus against models with the YPGANMFMYA -rule.

So forget all about hit points and damage charts, and just streamline the game like back in RT.

..oh and while you're at it, bring back cover modifiers to BS, remove all re-rolls - in fact lets just play RT B)

Karhedron
09-06-2015, 10:15
Dreadnoughts do not seem to match the fluff of uber-fighting machines that they are supposed to be. The Blood Angels and Space Wolves have some good Dreadnought options because of the way they are optimised.

Blood Angel Furioso Dreads have AV13 at the front which makes a big difference to survivability. They also have access to the unique Frag cannon which tears holes in most infantry at close range. This means they can be used quite easily by putting them in a drop pod and landing near a tasty target to toast. If the enemy shoots at them, they will take more firepower than a regular Dread to take down and will help distract attention from the rest of your army. If your opponent does not then you can charge in and start mincing stuff.

The Space Wolf Dread with the shield has a 3++ save which again gives him a vital edge in terms of survivability. Then there is Murderfang which is brutal in combat if it actually manages to get off a charge. Ironically both SW Dreads would work well with a Stormraven as it would give them a safe deployment mechanism.

I don't play vanilla Marines so I cannot comment on variants such as Ironclad but certainly the basic Marine Dread seems a little lackluster.

Snake Tortoise
09-06-2015, 10:21
The rumours are saying the standard SM dread will now have four attacks, right? With one gun arm and one fist arm? I think that will go some way towards making them worthwhile

I can't really talk about C:SM but if the chaos dread was updated next time to have four attacks with only one DCCW I'd consider it. You could take a reaper autocannon or plasma cannon, add a havoc missile launcher and stick a combi bolter on the fist for a respectable amount of anti infantry shooting, and while it still isn't on par with a predator for shooting it's a big boost to gain those extra S10 attacks in combat and unlike the pred it can move and shoot at full BS. Obviously it isn't very fast, but with tactical objectives it's still a significant boost being able to grab an objective and fire three guns.

Comparing a similarly built chaos dread with a dakka pred (generally considered good value)

Dakka dread (reaper autocannon, havoc missile launcher, combi bolter, dread CCW) 122
Dakka pred (autocannon, two heavy bolters, havoc missile launcher, combi bolter) 112

The predator's autocannon has 12" longer range but isn't twin linked, and the dread's effective range is 42" anyway. Both have havoc launchers and combi bolters. Then while the pred has heavy bolter sponsons, the dread has a CCW. The difference between having two attacks and four would be a game changer for me, I'd be very tempted to pick up that FW Alpha Legion dread if the chaos dread was boosted in line with the SM one

edit: Who am I kidding? I'm tempted to buy that FW dread now in the vain hope GW give the chaos dread more attacks in the future

T10
09-06-2015, 16:09
There really is no reason anymore for having two separate damage systems, as they're now so mixed up.


Seeing as how GW is willing to give robots a Toughness value, I entirely agree. Seriously, they could have designed the Necrons to be vehicles with really low armour: A Warrior could have been designed as a Walker with AV 9 and HP 1. Instead they gave them a Toughness value and Wounds.

I am curious: How is it that a Kabalite Warrior just happens to have with him poison that can melt the face off a construct of super-science metal warrior like an Immortal, but is entirely ineffective against the basic steel hull of a Chimera? If a Kabalite Warrior's poison can bring down a C'Tan, a being described as literally immune to natural law, how is any model allowed to take armour saves against it? Do the Dark Eldar like to lose?

Sorry for going off on a small rant there - I don't really mind the game mechanics, and I appreciate the designers desire to make a game that flows well.

-T10

Nightfall Shimmer
09-06-2015, 17:48
What happens when you attack a monsterous creature:

Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Take armour save.

What happens when you attack a vehicle:

Roll to hit. Roll to glance/penetrate.

Solution: Give Vehicles an Armour Save.

T10
09-06-2015, 17:53
Agreed. A 3+ armour save for most vehicles would put some purpose back into having Krak missiles with AP 3.

-T10

totgeboren
09-06-2015, 18:16
It has to be said that the Maulerfiend is super-fast and has an inbuilt inv save, daemonic resilience and IWND, yet I have only reached close combat with mine on two occasions.
Dreads of course lack both the speed and resilience of the Maulerfiend, yet cost about the same, and the Maulerfiend is just barely viable (they works in lists tailored to them where you also spam them).

If the Maulerfiend struggles, normal dreads would need a lot more than a 3+ save to become competitive (though a 3+ save would make them less terrible against stuff like autocannons and krak grenades).

Snake Tortoise
09-06-2015, 23:55
It has to be said that the Maulerfiend is super-fast and has an inbuilt inv save, daemonic resilience and IWND, yet I have only reached close combat with mine on two occasions.
Dreads of course lack both the speed and resilience of the Maulerfiend, yet cost about the same, and the Maulerfiend is just barely viable (they works in lists tailored to them where you also spam them).

If the Maulerfiend struggles, normal dreads would need a lot more than a 3+ save to become competitive (though a 3+ save would make them less terrible against stuff like autocannons and krak grenades).

To be fair just because a unit gets killed early doesn't mean it is bad, just that it is perceived as a great enough threat to require immediate attention.

A 5++ would be good for chaos/SM dreads. They'd still get destroyed by any opponent who really wants them dead, but for about 100 points you can't expect much more from a 12/12/10 walker with a decent gun and a few S10 attacks in combat

Greyhound
10-06-2015, 01:07
Agreed. A 3+ armour save for most vehicles would put some purpose back into having Krak missiles with AP 3.
-T10

I don't think I have ever lost a vehicle to someone shooting me with an AP4 or above (worse), it's always been Ap1-2-3.

You all mentioned Space Marine dreadnoughts, which have "some" limited ability to fire and cost usually 100+ pts.
What about the Ork dreads, they have the same cost and just about no fire power. They have 2 targets:
- Vehicles (which I have never managed to reach, they either drive away from me, or shoot me dead)
- infantry with no teeth (anything with melta bombs, powerfist etc.. must be avoided at all cost). Those I sometimes reach but they are usually tarpitting my dread for little to no benefit in the battle.


I think that removing the ability to blow them up on a good penetration roll (give them a -1 on the table), and adding wounds (I mean HP) would give them a much more resilient feel requiring a lot more firepower to take down.

Althenian Armourlost
10-06-2015, 01:29
Hi there!

I play IG and Eldar.


I use scout and armoured sentinel squadrons with my IG every game. I usually run 2x2 scout sentinels with autocannons on the flanks, and 2x armoured sentinels with plasma cannons as anti-elites. The latter are wonderful at killing deep-strikers.
With Eldar, I use war-walkers more than wraithlords as I use them in the wraithhost detachment. I usually run 2 war walkers with scatter lasers. While they are fragile, 2 of them are manoeuvrable to keep out of LOS most of the time.

I don't think non-superheavy walkers are necessarily out of the game, but I wouldn't take one that was supposed to get in close combat. Having more attacks is definitely what marine dreadnoughts needed to stay in the game though. I only ever see AV13 dreadnoughts though nowadays, with the exception of one player who uses an asscannon/HF dread as his anti-deepstrike quarterback, in the same role as I use my armoured sentinels. My swooping hawks hate that thing.

The Marshel
10-06-2015, 06:39
I don't think I have ever lost a vehicle to someone shooting me with an AP4 or above (worse), it's always been Ap1-2-3.

Thing is, I don't really mind high strength low shot low ap weapons killing my vehicles. It's what those guns are meant to be doing after all and you'd expect them to be fielded in appropriate numbers to be manageable if you use your walker well.

It's the high shot, high ap anti infantry weapons that are the problem. there is a hell of a lot of S6 around these days, so you just get light vehicles being milled down by 15 or so s6 shots a turn. Because these are typically designed to be anti infantry weapons, they come in abundance and there is no real way to consistently avoid them AND proper anti tank weapons.

Having an armour save to fall back on would go a long way to helping this. a 3+ won't impact most proper anti tank weapons but greatly reduce loses to the high shot high ap variety. Given the numbers you can usually field these weapons in they are still a threat, but they wouldn't reliably be able to take down av 12 vehicles

totgeboren
10-06-2015, 08:23
A 3+ save or perhaps a rule that let them ignore HP loss on a 4+ in close combat could help, if they also get a rather massive increase in attacks like the new SM dreads have got.

More attacks seem to be a given considering the new SM codex, though they still lack the resilience they need to even be able to use their attacks.
Perhaps a points drop would be better than extra rules for resilience? +2 attacks and 20 pts less could be all they need.

Theocracity
10-06-2015, 16:26
From an Ork perspective, the things I feel would make Kans viable would be a points drop. Otherwise they feel fine - S7 in combat isn't spectacular but it's fine that Grots don't fill the same choppy role as Dreads.

For Dreads, I'd just be happy if they let them squadron up. Spending a whole HS slot on a single AV12 walker is just crazy, so some redundancy would really help them get across the field.

As far as wishlisty core rules changes go, giving vehicles a 3+ save would actually be fantastic, as it makes a lot of sense. Then they could represent Open Topped vehicles with a weaker armor save, rather than an increased chance of exploding and nuking its passengers.

Edit: In fact, if I could redesign the whole lot, this is how I'd do it. I could see arguments for Open Topped giving a 4+ or Superheavy giving a 3+, though.

Vehicles: 3+ armor save. Cannot use their armor save in close combat, as the enemy can exploit cracks.

Open Topped vehicles: 5+ armor save. Cannot use armor save in close combat. No modifiers on vehicle damage table for open topped.

Superheavy Vehicles: 2+ armor save. Cannot use armor save in close combat. Takes damage results from new superheavy vehicle table that can reduce firepower or mobility.

Walkers: 3+ armor save, can use their armor in combat (as they're actually engaging the enemy)

Open Topped Walkers: 5+ armor save, can use their armor. No modifiers on vehicle damage table for open topped.

Superheavy Walkers: 2+ armor save. Can use armor save in close combat. Takes damage results from new superheavy vehicle table that can reduce firepower or mobility.

The only concern would be the devaluation of autocannons - aren't those supposed to be anti-vehicle in role? Also, plasma would become remarkably effective vs vehicles, despite its traditional anti-infantry role.

The Marshel
10-06-2015, 19:40
Plasma wouldn't become any more effective then it already is though. Rather everything else would become less effective. Plasma imo fills that same niche of versatility that Autocannons do.

The impact on autocannons is probably the biggest downside to giving vehicles an armor save. That said autocannons aren't exactly expensive and trade their strength away for rate of fire. Making them worse may not be all that bad, as the general trend people show in list making is toward redundancies rather then using higher strength single shots. Against some vehicle targets an autocannon and lascannon have comparable results but the autocannon is favored for being multishot (making it more statistically consistence and versatile) and is often cheaper. A wider gap between autocannons and high strength AT weapons may not be a bad thing

MaliGn
10-06-2015, 20:44
Couldn't you give armour saves more like they are for the different factions? So space marine vehicles would be 3+ save, but eldar 4+ (with ivuln options for holofields etc), or even on a unit by unit basis so chimeras could be 4+ and leman Russ 3+

Actually on a separate note why do vehicles need different statlines at all? Just give them T8/9/10 as appropriate, sure we'd lose side and rear armour but since an impossible spin move (for no skimmers at least) is free what's the point?

Theocracity
10-06-2015, 20:53
Couldn't you give armour saves more like they are for the different factions? So space marine vehicles would be 3+ save, but eldar 4+ (with ivuln options for holofields etc), or even on a unit by unit basis so chimeras could be 4+ and leman Russ 3+

I sort of like the 3+ as default, as that works as a nice cutoff for what's considered an anti-tank weapon, but you could make an argument to set vehicle armor save on a per-army basis. It'd be easier to change as a core rule though, as it would automatically update vehicles without requiring a new codex.

Plus, having lower vehicle armor saves for armies in which that's 'fluffy' would probably just end up screwing over Ork vehicles, so I'm biased :p.

Snake Tortoise
10-06-2015, 21:44
I'm not keen on armour saves for vehicles. It would screw tyranids for a start- dakka flyrants would become pretty useless and without them the nids are in a bad, bad place.

A 5++ for space marine/chaos dreads would be a good boost though, and reasonable since the other dreadnought armour (tactical dreadnought armour) comes with a 5++. You could maybe even give them a 4++

Killa kans- just make them 35 points again.
Ork dreads- make them cheaper and let them be taken in threes.
Sentinels and eldar walkers seem alright to me

Anyway, the difference between marine dreads and the walkers above is space marine dreads are supposed to be awesome machines of destruction, none of the above are

Baaltor
10-06-2015, 21:48
Hi there!

I play IG and Eldar.


I use scout and armoured sentinel squadrons with my IG every game. I usually run 2x2 scout sentinels with autocannons on the flanks, and 2x armoured sentinels with plasma cannons as anti-elites. The latter are wonderful at killing deep-strikers.
With Eldar, I use war-walkers more than wraithlords as I use them in the wraithhost detachment. I usually run 2 war walkers with scatter lasers. While they are fragile, 2 of them are manoeuvrable to keep out of LOS most of the time.

I don't think non-superheavy walkers are necessarily out of the game, but I wouldn't take one that was supposed to get in close combat. Having more attacks is definitely what marine dreadnoughts needed to stay in the game though....

Most of the vehicles you listed are a fraction of the dread's cost, yet have a disproportional level of resilience in comparison. Just like the dread, they can lose their weapon on one roll, but have nearly the same HP, barely lower AV's, if at all; and comparable firepower. Less firepower to be sure, but they're in the same LEAGUE, despite the huge price difference. They're also focussed, which I'm not normally willing to call an objective advantage, but in 40k the designers seem to think being able to do multiple roles should cost you a premium when it should give you a discount, since you can only use it for ONE thing at a time.



Fry: But you live in a gingerbread house.
Neptunian 2: Hey, it's food or shelter, not both.




Thing is, I don't really mind high strength low shot low ap weapons killing my vehicles. It's what those guns are meant to be doing after all and you'd expect them to be fielded in appropriate numbers to be manageable if you use your walker well.

What about the weapons for killing MC's, why aren't they doing it in one shot? Or the anti infantry guns, why don't they knock out units in one shot? Both of these are at the same price point, but the don't run on an all or nothing system.


From an Ork perspective, the things I feel would make Kans viable would be a points drop. Otherwise they feel fine - S7 in combat isn't spectacular but it's fine that Grots don't fill the same choppy role as Dreads.

For Dreads, I'd just be happy if they let them squadron up. Spending a whole HS slot on a single AV12 walker is just crazy, so some redundancy would really help them get across the field.

I misread the first thing a few times, because i always confuse dredds w/ killa kans, but a couple of good points here I think.


The only concern would be the devaluation of autocannons - aren't those supposed to be anti-vehicle in role? Also, plasma would become remarkably effective vs vehicles, despite its traditional anti-infantry role.

I have a fetishe for both those weapons, but I'm not too concerned about this'd mean for them.

Plasma (Human) is fire & lightning; the Wrath of God /Jones; it's good at killing everything, even the operator. Other races may not share this this weakness, but they're usually toting a S6 nerfblaster version that's NOT good at downing vehicles, especially at the pricepoint. And then plasma is crazy overpriced IMHO. I could take a lascannon for a couple more points, or a melta for a few less; and both of those have their own merits. Maybe not totally analogous, but I prefer the security and the benefits. Not that those facts stop me from equiping everything under the sun (no pun intended) with plasma in for shiggles games.

The autocannon comes at such a low price, and with across the board (again not a pun) benefits. Good RoF, AP, and S. This would SUCK in a big way, sure, but it does all that for cheap, with great range. I'm confident they'd survive.

I think the AP system needs a rework, and that'd help a lot of what's wrong in the game, but that's a little out of this topic.


Actually on a separate note why do vehicles need different statlines at all? Just give them T8/9/10 as appropriate, sure we'd lose side and rear armour but since an impossible spin move (for no skimmers at least) is free what's the point?

I don't like vehicle statlines, I've spammed that opinion a gorillion times, so I'll spare you now.

I'm a big fan of a Epic rule that gives you a bonus to damage enemies if you can trace your line of fire through their unit to another of your units (IIRC). Basically it puts positioning of your units in your mind, instead of positioning of your models, which I think is better for 40k's scale.


I sort of like the 3+ as default, as that works as a nice cutoff for what's considered an anti-tank weapon, but you could make an argument to set vehicle armor save on a per-army basis. It'd be easier to change as a core rule though, as it would automatically update vehicles without requiring a new codex.

Plus, having lower vehicle armor saves for armies in which that's 'fluffy' would probably just end up screwing over Ork vehicles, so I'm biased :p.

I don't know, Ork vehicles have already been getting dividends from this system for years now in my opinion. Inv. saves from their ramshackle nature, et al. Even if Grot tanks are hilariously overpriced.

Dr.Clock
10-06-2015, 21:52
At the same time, a base 3+ save doesn't make vehicles better, it just makes some weapons worse at dealing with them.

I'm all for vehicles being a bit 'harder', and my preferred option remains simply adding a HP to every single vehicle in the game, in addition to bringing back vehicle damage rolls from glances. You could even give glances a roll at -1 so that glances won't immobilize things if you feel like it.

I still think dreadnoughts have their place, and I'm really glad that they've gained an attack in the new codex. Lighter shooty walkers do pretty well in my experience - especially my war walkers. The big weakness has got to be the proliferation of krak grenades, and the fact that dreads can't pick out melta-bombing/p-fisted sergeants. While the challenge mechanic would be a bit abusive insofar as it would stop the rest of a squad from doing anything at all while the challenge took place, it's simply too easy to plant high S hits on a walker in assault, and especially if you just hide in cover. If walkers ignored I penalties charging through terrain, that would go a long way... but in addition I'd love to see something like 'precision shots' on their attacks where they can prioritize killing models that are most threatening to them.

I think the OP is overselling MCs generally as well - as many of them suffer too from the ubiquity of krak. It may be a simple matter of making krak grenades harder to use in combat vs. things that can actually hit back (walkers and MCs) - maybe making them Unwieldy would work simply by allowing you to (hopefully) remove a few guys before they can use them.

Anyway, I JUST bought a FW World Eater dreadnought for a song - and it's sooooo beautiful. I mostly just want Legacies of Ruin to apply to my Daemonkin so that I can Scout him. At the end of the day, I'll probably just ask my opponents to let me proxy him as a Mauler, or even try and find some tracks or extra legs to convert him into one. Maulers are simply fantastic in my opinion... but I'm pretty sure we use alot more terrain generally than most people on here.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Theocracity
10-06-2015, 21:56
I'm not keen on armour saves for vehicles. It would screw tyranids for a start- dakka flyrants would become pretty useless and without them the nids are in a bad, bad place.

I'm pretty sure they could also just give Nids some better antitank options than flyrants. That'd be better for the game overall even if they don't give vehicles armor saves. That's also why I included the wishlist clause that tanks wouldn't get the armor save in CC.


A 5++ for space marine/chaos dreads would be a good boost though, and reasonable since the other dreadnought armour (tactical dreadnought armour) comes with a 5++. You could maybe even give them a 4++

Killa kans- just make them 35 points again.
Ork dreads- make them cheaper and let them be taken in threes.
Sentinels and eldar walkers seem alright to me

Marine Dreads now come in squads, apparently, so giving that to Ork Dreads sounds like a baseline. Giving Marine ones an extra invuln save for no reason (as dreadnought sarcophagi doesn't have any background relationship to tactical dreadnought armor) and not giving it to other CC walkers doesn't seem that fair.


Anyway, the difference between marine dreads and the walkers above is space marine dreads are supposed to be awesome machines of destruction, none of the above are

If a metal giant with four buzzsaw arms with a pilot who thinks wanton destruction is what's best in life doesn't count as an 'awesome machine of destruction' I'm not sure what else would. I'm sensing a bit of Marine bias here ;).


It may be a simple matter of making krak grenades harder to use in combat vs. things that can actually hit back (walkers and MCs) - maybe making them Unwieldy would work simply by allowing you to (hopefully) remove a few guys before they can use them.

That's a fantastic idea. I've never liked the idea that a squad of marines can just play Bozo Buckets and huck krak grenades at an oncoming dreadnought to kill it. They should have to get in close and place the grenades at weak points, which is super risky when your target is actively trying to dismember you.

innerwolf
10-06-2015, 21:59
If a metal giant with four buzzsaw arms with a pilot who thinks wanton destruction is what's best in life doesn't count as an 'awesome machine of destruction' I'm not sure what else would. I'm sensing a bit of Marine bias here ;).

One is a revered, legendary warrior among an army of elite, legendary warriors. The other is a brute inside a trash bin with legs.

I think there is a difference of grade there ;)

Theocracity
10-06-2015, 22:02
One is a revered, legendary warrior among an army of elite, legendary warriors. The other is a brute inside a trash bin with legs.

I think there is a difference of grade there ;)

Yeah, and one is half dead and comatose most of his existence while the other spends his days wreaking havoc to make up for the fact that he eats through a tube. We can play fluff justifications all day.

Edit: I feel like that came out a bit defensive. My point was that if the question is "how do we improve close combat / hybrid walkers," the answer shouldn't be "only improve Marine ones." Fluff justifications can be fun, but it's in the interests of the game to improve the whole category rather than give an edge selectively.

Snake Tortoise
10-06-2015, 22:41
I see your point Theocracity, but I like innerwolf's comment :D


I'm pretty sure they could also just give Nids some better antitank options than flyrants. That'd be better for the game overall even if they don't give vehicles armor saves. That's also why I included the wishlist clause that tanks wouldn't get the armor save in CC.

Marine Dreads now come in squads, apparently, so giving that to Ork Dreads sounds like a baseline. Giving Marine ones an extra invuln save for no reason (as dreadnought sarcophagi doesn't have any background relationship to tactical dreadnought armor) and not giving it to other CC walkers doesn't seem that fair.

If a metal giant with four buzzsaw arms with a pilot who thinks wanton destruction is what's best in life doesn't count as an 'awesome machine of destruction' I'm not sure what else would. I'm sensing a bit of Marine bias here ;).

That's a fantastic idea. I've never liked the idea that a squad of marines can just play Bozo Buckets and huck krak grenades at an oncoming dreadnought to kill it. They should have to get in close and place the grenades at weak points, which is super risky when your target is actively trying to dismember you.

All good points. What about a 5++ for ork dreads and 4++ for marine ones? If ork dreads still aren't up to scratch (I think they'd be solid at that point) lower the cost of them

Regarding krak grenades, dreads aren't that vulnerable to them. Against WS4 you need 12 marines to get 6 hits to get 1 glance. It's not exactly devastating, and if 33/50% of those glances are saved by an invulnerable while a dread with four (or more) attacks is hacking through the unit, you'd probably want to be the player using the dread. The problem with the chaos dread right now is it only has two attacks. Pathetic.

Theocracity
10-06-2015, 22:54
I see your point Theocracity, but I like innerwolf's comment :D



All good points. What about a 5++ for ork dreads and 4++ for marine ones? If ork dreads still aren't up to scratch (I think they'd be solid at that point) lower the cost of them

While I certainly wouldn't mind a 5++ for Deff dreads, I also don't think that invulnerable saves are the answer here. They seem like more of a bandage fix that doesn't address the underlying problem - if anything, it would just increase the prevalence of multi-shot mid strength weapons and devalue single-shot antitank weapons even more, since the only way past invuln saves is weight of fire or D strength.

Plus, a default 4++ for marine dreads would annoy the Space Wolves who have storm shields as their faction-specific dread 'thing.'


Regarding krak grenades, dreads aren't that vulnerable to them. Against WS4 you need 12 marines to get 6 hits to get 1 glance. It's not exactly devastating, and if 33/50% of those glances are saved by an invulnerable while a dread with four (or more) attacks is hacking through the unit, you'd probably want to be the player using the dread. The problem with the chaos dread right now is it only has two attacks. Pathetic.

I feel like I've lost more walkers to krak grenades than those odds. Maybe I've just been unlucky :p. Though I guess with Killa Kans being WS 2, AV11 and only 2 hull points I'm probably more vulnerable to it.

Baaltor
10-06-2015, 23:00
I'm pretty sure they could also just give Nids some better antitank options than flyrants. That'd be better for the game overall even if they don't give vehicles armor saves....


Affirmative: treat the disease, not the symptoms. Although you could argue that GW's precedent is to do the opposite, which is why we have the current system's idiosyncrasies.


Marine Dreads now come in squads...

Wow, really? I strongly dislike that.


Giving Marine ones an extra invuln save for no reason...

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Marines do have a precedent for the save since there's the venerable dread rule which is rather redundant. And it's called tactical dreadnaught armour for a reason! It may not be derived from the Dread chassis, but it was designed to replace the vehicle when it wouldn't fit into the environment they needed the support in. Thus the two share a lot of equipment and design philosophies. It was latter crammed into other roles, unless that fluff's been retconned.


That's a fantastic idea. I've never liked the idea that a squad of marines can just play Bozo Buckets and huck krak grenades at an oncoming dreadnought to kill it. They should have to get in close and place the grenades at weak points, which is super risky when your target is actively trying to dismember you.

Yeah it's a dumb change that I don't know why they made.

Theocracity
10-06-2015, 23:09
Wow, really? I strongly dislike that.

I think so? I know all vehicles can come in squads now, and I think all dreads were included. I'm doubting my memory now though.

I'm agnostic on what it means for Marines, but I love the precedent it sets for Orks.


Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Marines do have a precedent for the save since there's the venerable dread rule which is rather redundant. And it's called tactical dreadnaught armour for a reason! It may not be derived from the Dread chassis, but it was designed to replace the vehicle when it wouldn't fit into the environment they needed the support in. Thus the two share a lot of equipment and design philosophies. It was latter crammed into other roles, unless that fluff's been retconned.

To be fair, the original incarnation of Tactical Dreadnought armor didn't come with an invuln save either. Also I was under the impression that it originated from the suits used to service plasma reactors, while Dreads have all those life support sarcophagus elements.

They could give them invuln saves for any reason, of course, but I don't think there's a strong background justification and doing so would create some perverse incentives that just make the current problems with Dreads worse.

ehlijen
10-06-2015, 23:34
The problem goes much deeper than fiddling with just vehicle stats.

The game is currently all about units that can easily project excessively lethal attack power anywhere on the board. Units that can't do that easily, not to be able survive facing that with reasonable odds or stay on the shelves (few players bring units that won't achieve even just staying alive).
Shooting became more powerful, reserves became more reliable, upgrade weapon access has increased generally and allying made cherry picking powerful units easier than ever.

What is considered 'tough' has changed, and almost no vehicles still make that list (and those that do mostly rely on special rules). You can't just make vehicles tougher, though. There is supposed to be a range in vehicle toughness from scout sentinels to baneblade supertanks. It must remain feasible to kill the baneblade within a single game (and because GW wants to sell many kits, they'll ideally not be an entire army to themselves either), while at the same time the scout walkers still need to be noticeable tougher than infantry (or what's the point). That leaves only a certain range for tough but not supertough vehicles, and that range is basically worthless, offering neither the strength in numbers of infantry or the sheer HP of superheavies. Just ask nid players how they like their mid size bugs (they are quite tough vs AP guns, but because most people prefers AT guns as they are more versatile, they may as well be expensive gants).

Monstrous creatures and their rules aren't a solution either; 'medium monsters' are no more popular than medium vehicles unless they are cheap enough to deploy in numbers (eg few still consider the carnifex a big monster even though it's stats haven't changed too much).

In short, the range of available toughness ratings is too narrow to represent everything from grots to titans on the same scale and still sell the number of models of each that GW wants to sell. This is exacerbated by firepower geared for anti titan work being too readily available (because titans are too readily available), meaning the spectrum below titan resilience blurs into an even narrower range (while ironically titankiller guns are lumped into one generic 'D' category).

To fix this, the entire scope of the game needs to be rexamined. It can be fixed, but not with just tweaking one area of the rules.

Commissar Davis
10-06-2015, 23:48
Give them 4+ FNP while assuming they are T10 against glancing hits and others a 5+ FNP. I think that kind of fits.

Snake Tortoise
11-06-2015, 00:26
Great post ehlijen

Grombrindal
11-06-2015, 01:19
I think all walkers should be given an inbuilt 6++. Every last one of them, from Killa Kans and Sentinels, to Iron Clads and MoGorkanauts.

Then work off of +1 Inv from there. So Ven and Ironclads getting to buy +1 Inv, Deff Dreads maybe getting a +1 with a "new" MekDread formation (3+ Deff Dreads, one has to be MekDread, get access to KFF/SAG), other books getting other benefits.


It wont make them broken by any means, it will just give them a better chance of survival.

I have been told that 6++ is horrible to have on MoTz CSM, but they have survived a lot chucked at them thanks to it, if it can make a Kan Wall playable again, bring on the 6++

cuda1179
11-06-2015, 01:24
What if walkers ignored glancing hits? That would be enough to make them survivable.

Grombrindal
11-06-2015, 01:32
What if walkers ignored glancing hits? That would be enough to make them survivable.

Or if on a glancing hit they roll a D6 and on a 4+ it is ignored.

Ignoring glancing is very strong, where-as having an in-built roll for a glance, with a variable of say, if the weapon is ap1/2, it becomes a 5+.

Void_Walker
11-06-2015, 10:46
I love space marines dreads, the models and fluff are brilliant; I would happily field them, though I wouldn't get much bang for my buck. Marine dreadnoughts should be inspiring; they are the heros of their chapter every brother and novice would know the name of each and every 'living' dread in the chapter and fair few not. This should be shown in the their rules, they should confer special rules to nearby units such as stubborn, zealot or similiar; perhaps you could pick one per turn once per game (like the ultras chapter tactics).

Nightfall Shimmer
11-06-2015, 16:45
I'm just saying with the Armour Save... As an Eldar player, shooting my anti-infantry guns at the more vulnerable sides and rear of an armoured vehicle, of any kind... my Scatter Lasers shouldn't -really- be stripping hull points. They should be bouncing off except for the occasional lucky hit...

Snake Tortoise
11-06-2015, 17:19
Space marine dread: 5++
CSM dread: 5++ and same base attacks (four) as the SM version, ability to field in squadron
Ork dread: Plus one attack since the standard version has one more CC arm than the SM/CSM dreads, ability to field in squadron
Killa kans: 35 points
All other standard walkers: No change

I wouldn't give the ork dread an invulnerable because it's already cheaper than the marine dreads and while it is only I2 and BS2 it has four arms! Also bear in mind the invulnerable the marine dreads have is only relevant when it isn't getting a cover save

I think these changes would be enough to make dreads fair and any more buffing would be unreasonable. I'd be more than pleased with a chaos dread which has four attacks and a 5++ considering how much they cost to field, and I think all other walkers would be in line with that power level. If they're still not competitive at that point I'd say it's more to do with other units/combos being too powerful rather than the dread being too weak


I'm just saying with the Armour Save... As an Eldar player, shooting my anti-infantry guns at the more vulnerable sides and rear of an armoured vehicle, of any kind... my Scatter Lasers shouldn't -really- be stripping hull points. They should be bouncing off except for the occasional lucky hit...

It could be an interesting gameplay mechanic but I think the problem is you'd end up with two stats that both represent the same thing on a vehicle; the armour values and the armour save. What would the difference be? Toughness and armour save are obviously distinct, but how would that be the case on vehicles with armour saves?

Baaltor
12-06-2015, 01:01
The thing is that for most of 40k's history, AV has represented: Toughness, Armour, AND WOUNDS, up until the last edition, where they introduced hullpoints, wounds, but STILL haven't introduced a meaningful level of gradation. Since all vehicles share the same damage chart, it's as if one of the components, armour mostly, is removed from the game and assumed to be equal across all races and all chassis. Aside from as ludicrous as that is, it also means that the entire vehicle damage rules must be balanced with the fact that Landraiders and scout sentinels have the same table.

mightymconeshot
12-06-2015, 01:08
I think an armour save would be great on a vehicle. A 3+ base 2+ for extremely armoured targets, and 4+ for things that barely have any armour. I think this would encourage the right weapons to be used against vehicles. Low AP anti-tank would become much more effective while high AP weaponary would become less effective. I think it would be a great step in fixing vehices and encourage people to actually bring anti-tank weapons again.

Nightfall Shimmer
12-06-2015, 13:04
It could be an interesting gameplay mechanic but I think the problem is you'd end up with two stats that both represent the same thing on a vehicle; the armour values and the armour save. What would the difference be? Toughness and armour save are obviously distinct, but how would that be the case on vehicles with armour saves?

Except Armour Value = Toughness.

AV 10 = T7
AV 11 = T8
AV 12 = T9
AV 13 = T10
AV 14 = T11

Theocracity
12-06-2015, 13:39
Except Armour Value = Toughness.

AV 10 = T7
AV 11 = T8
AV 12 = T9
AV 13 = T10
AV 14 = T11

That's not quite right, though, as S6 weapons can wound T10 or T11 but not AV13 and AV14.

ehlijen
12-06-2015, 13:43
Except Armour Value = Toughness.

AV 10 = T7
AV 11 = T8
AV 12 = T9
AV 13 = T10
AV 14 = T11

Almost, yeah. The difference being that T has that extra value that any given S can wound on a 6+ that AV doesn't, and that's what' always brought out is the true big advantage of AV. It's not worth the absence of saves and much lower wound count on average, though.

That said, armour saves on vehicles wouldn't solve the problem I mentioned earlier. It'd just make it more important to bring AP2/3, which means many people will, which means saves become very unimportant all around with most things ignoring them.

Snake Tortoise
12-06-2015, 13:51
Except Armour Value = Toughness.

AV 10 = T7
AV 11 = T8
AV 12 = T9
AV 13 = T10
AV 14 = T11

Look at it from a fluff perspective though. Toughness and armour save for infantry are two completely different concepts and both easily explainable. How would the difference between armour value and armour save for a vehicle be explained? For me they'd both represent exactly the same thing, the armour plating surrounding the working parts of the vehicle. If the armour save of a vehicle and infantry both represent the same thing, what does the armour value of a vehicle mean in practice? How tough its innards are? How much of a beating it could take if you stripped away all armour plating? Maybe I'm too used to the way 40k has done it for as long as I remember, but it just seems like a weird concept to me

Then again I'd have a hard time explaining the practical difference between toughness and wounds for infantry, so maybe it doesn't have to make sense

In any case, if we introduced armour saves for vehicles then yea, it would buff walkers. But it would also buff imperial knights, land raiders, wave serpents, rhinos, battlewagons and all sorts of vehicles that don't need to be harder to destroy

T10
12-06-2015, 13:53
What bothers me is how the classic anti-tank weapon, the krak missile, is pretty much out of the game as far as actually blowing up vehicles is concerned: With S8 it's capable of punching through armour, but at AP 3 it's not causing "killy" damage. the idea that AP affects vehicle damage isn't particularly new, but I think it is strange that AP has no effect on penetrating vehicle armour and Strength has no effect on the severity of damage inflicted.

-T10

HelloKitty
12-06-2015, 14:10
I'd be all for removing AV altogether and giving everything a T value instead. Even going higher than 10 max for T on super heavy tanks.

Theocracity
12-06-2015, 14:12
I'd be all for removing AV altogether and giving everything a T value instead. Even going higher than 10 max for T on super heavy tanks.

It could definitely be done. Just give vehicles a USR that covers their immunities to things like Poison and Fleshbane, and more vulnerable to armor-penetrating weapons like Melta (in some way that I haven't bothered to think through :p).

mightymconeshot
12-06-2015, 14:19
To me, it doesn't matter if AP 2/3 weaponary ignores an armour save on a vehicle. It is an anti-tank round usually in that case or an anti-everything round. It would match fluff with mechanics and discourage people using none anti tank weaponary to strip hullpoints off while at the same time encourgaing them to bring proper anti-tank to destory vehicles. Vehicles could even have gradiants with front armor save being different from sides. So a sentinel would be 4+ armour all around. A chimera would be 3+ front, 4+ every where else. A hellhound would be 3+ front/sides, 4+ rear, and lastly a leman Russ could be 2+ or 3+ front, 3+ sides and 4+ rear or with the demolished pattern 3+ rear as well. Now we have encouraged flank shots and anti-tank weaponary use and making it obviously different between levels of anti-tank. A leman Russ could shrug off a krak rocket to the front, while getting hit on the side by one makes it much deadlier. A light anti-tank weapon like an autocannon suddenly shreds light vehicles like sentinels and the side of chimeras like they do in fluff. I think an armour save would do a great job for buffing vehicles as most will now get a 50% or more health boost against hull point stripping.

Snake Tortoise
12-06-2015, 14:54
To me, it doesn't matter if AP 2/3 weaponary ignores an armour save on a vehicle. It is an anti-tank round usually in that case or an anti-everything round. It would match fluff with mechanics and discourage people using none anti tank weaponary to strip hullpoints off while at the same time encourgaing them to bring proper anti-tank to destory vehicles. Vehicles could even have gradiants with front armor save being different from sides. So a sentinel would be 4+ armour all around. A chimera would be 3+ front, 4+ every where else. A hellhound would be 3+ front/sides, 4+ rear, and lastly a leman Russ could be 2+ or 3+ front, 3+ sides and 4+ rear or with the demolished pattern 3+ rear as well. Now we have encouraged flank shots and anti-tank weaponary use and making it obviously different between levels of anti-tank. A leman Russ could shrug off a krak rocket to the front, while getting hit on the side by one makes it much deadlier. A light anti-tank weapon like an autocannon suddenly shreds light vehicles like sentinels and the side of chimeras like they do in fluff. I think an armour save would do a great job for buffing vehicles as most will now get a 50% or more health boost against hull point stripping.

I like this a lot

Shadeseraph
12-06-2015, 21:44
My Nid MCs, who tend to cost 60 to 100 pts more than a dready, usually have:
-less attacks.
-less WS.
-less S.
-Worse guns.
-A damn hard time taking down an AV12 dreadnought hitting on fours and glancing on sixes with an average of 3 attacks while it hits on 3+ and wounds on 2+.

No pity from me. Swamp them in gaunts.

MaliGn
12-06-2015, 21:52
Almost, yeah. The difference being that T has that extra value that any given S can wound on a 6+ that AV doesn't, and that's what' always brought out is the true big advantage of AV. It's not worth the absence of saves and much lower wound count on average, though.

That said, armour saves on vehicles wouldn't solve the problem I mentioned earlier. It'd just make it more important to bring AP2/3, which means many people will, which means saves become very unimportant all around with most things ignoring them.

I think that this issue could be resloved by properly extending the to wound chart and including nulls, where the strength is simply too low for the toughness. So no more lucky 6+ rolls.

totgeboren
12-06-2015, 22:59
Except Armour Value = Toughness.

AV 10 = T7
AV 11 = T8
AV 12 = T9
AV 13 = T10
AV 14 = T11

All the T values are 1 too high. S6 wounds T6 on a 4+ and damages AV10 on a 4+.

AV14=T10, where the only difference is that at the extreme end you can still hurt T even if your S is one too low, but on the other hand vehicles don't get armour and can be destroyed by a single hit.

ehlijen
13-06-2015, 02:00
My Nid MCs, who tend to cost 60 to 100 pts more than a dready, usually have:
-less attacks.
-less WS.
-less S.
-Worse guns.
-A damn hard time taking down an AV12 dreadnought hitting on fours and glancing on sixes with an average of 3 attacks while it hits on 3+ and wounds on 2+.

No pity from me. Swamp them in gaunts.

Don't all the nid MCs offer things the dread doesn't do? Dreads can't fly, make nearby units fearless or spawn more gants. The MC that is most like the dread in what it can do is the carnifex, which if I remember right has more attacks (4 vs 2(3)), same S on the charge and 4 wounds vs 3 HP, while costing in the same ballpark?

And all the reasons why most players don't like the fexes any more are very similar to why most players don't feel dreads can hold their own anymore. It's not a T vs AV problem, it's game scope problem.


I think that this issue could be resloved by properly extending the to wound chart and including nulls, where the strength is simply too low for the toughness. So no more lucky 6+ rolls.

There are null values. Any given S value can wound up to T+3, and up to AV+6. On paper that should make T X equal to AV X+3, but that's not quite how it works because the cut off points are different.

For T it goes ........2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 6+ NA...
For AV it goes...1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ NA........

So arguments can be made for T X equalling either AV X+3 or AV X+4, things are very fuzzy.

Expanding the T (and S) chart upwards is needed if the game is serious about tracking everything from Grot to Titan. But without composition rules or changing the system so High end weapons simply cannot wound low end targets, players will gravitate towards the higher end of the scale in both weapons and units (no one wants to be unable to hurt the enemy and everyone like possibly being invulnerable to some of the enemy force).
When that happens, not if, the lower end of the spectrum will blur together.

Much of the game already doesn't care about T3 vs T4 anymore. 5+ saves? Useless, just like 6+ saves. AV10? Might as run at the enemy and hope to catch them in the explosion. An expanded T and S chart without composition safeguards will see that only get worse.

dale
13-06-2015, 04:16
I still use them, helbrutes and defilers, just because I like the models. There can be numerous debates that can be started on the fact that a model is or isn't tough enough. Helbrutes/dreadnoughts have worked fairly well for me when I use multiple ones. Are there better options than walkers? Sure. But I still choose to use walkers. There is NOTHING more annoying than a walker that cannot be destroyed.

Shadeseraph
13-06-2015, 09:51
Don't all the nid MCs offer things the dread doesn't do? Dreads can't fly, make nearby units fearless or spawn more gants. The MC that is most like the dread in what it can do is the carnifex, which if I remember right has more attacks (4 vs 2(3)), same S on the charge and 4 wounds vs 3 HP, while costing in the same ballpark?

Ah, don't get me wrong. It's the last point the one that gets to me. Other than electroshock grubs, swarming them in gaunts or throwing as many 'fexes as possible there is not many ways to deal with AV12-13 walkers with any reliability.

The other things are just my own gripes with Nid MCs (and well, that some of those bonuses are extremely expensive, such as the haruspex abilities or the tyranofex 2+). And the carnifex has 3 attacks base at WS3, which leaves him with less attacks than the new SM dreadies @ 4 WS4 :P, and S10 on the charge only if you pay 15 extra points... which you actually do for fleet, but anyway. And it's still 20 pts more expensive with only 2 pairs of claws.

Commissar Davis
13-06-2015, 10:26
I think that people over complicate things. Personally, I think the AV system works OK but has been messed up a bit with hull points.

Bonzai
13-06-2015, 15:18
I started playing in 5th, and my space marine list has always been:

Vulkan
3+ Tac squads with Meltas and flamer's, in drop pods
3 ironclads w/ meltas and Hvy flamers, in pods.
+ some other fast reserve element. Originally land speeders (melta, flamers), now a storm Talon.

So far in 7th, I've done fine. Not Uber competitive, but I can make a game of it with most lists. The dreads drop in, and it's all about placement. Keep your backside to the pod, so you get cover from shots to your rear, and maximize target priority. Armor 13 is a big difference, and they are just survivable enough to hold out till the rest of the reserves come in.

So far I like what I've been hearing. Extra attacks, FNP on Vulkan (he was a beast already), and FNP vs flame templates helps against some weapons that bypass the 3+ save.

So for me, walkers never really went out of style. I've always loved dreadnaughts, and playing an orbital insertion force is one of the coolest aspects of playing space marines.

ehlijen
13-06-2015, 22:13
I started playing in 5th, and my space marine list has always been:

Vulkan
3+ Tac squads with Meltas and flamer's, in drop pods
3 ironclads w/ meltas and Hvy flamers, in pods.
+ some other fast reserve element. Originally land speeders (melta, flamers), now a storm Talon.

So far in 7th, I've done fine. Not Uber competitive, but I can make a game of it with most lists. The dreads drop in, and it's all about placement. Keep your backside to the pod, so you get cover from shots to your rear, and maximize target priority. Armor 13 is a big difference, and they are just survivable enough to hold out till the rest of the reserves come in.

So far I like what I've been hearing. Extra attacks, FNP on Vulkan (he was a beast already), and FNP vs flame templates helps against some weapons that bypass the 3+ save.

So for me, walkers never really went out of style. I've always loved dreadnaughts, and playing an orbital insertion force is one of the coolest aspects of playing space marines.

I take it you are aware of how much less potent a dreadnaught without a droppod is, though. Even AV13 isn't all that tough, but what pods do is reduce the need for toughness by granting an alpha strike ability.

Nightfall Shimmer
14-06-2015, 15:04
I got the toughness values slightly wrong, but it did illustrate my point. The damage table does not even closely give the same amount of resiliance that an armour save does.

Starshot Missle. Against a Eldar Wraithlord. (T8, 3 wounds, 3+Sv) 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save (AP3).
Scatter Laser. Against the same Wraithlord. 4 shots, each 3+ to hit, 6s to wound, 3+ save.

Starshot Missile. Against a Space marine Dreadnought (AV 12 front, 3 HPs?). 3+ to hit, 4s to Glance, 5+ to Penetrate, no save.
Scatter Laser. Against the same target. 4 shots, each 3+ to hit, 6s to Glance.

Very similar numbers in each case baring one major difference. The Wraithlords Armour Save.

-WHY- is the Marine Dreadnought easier to kill? It shouldn't be. It should take the same amount of fire to kill one as the Wraithlord. Same for an Ork Dread, or a Carnifex.

itcamefromthedeep
14-06-2015, 17:56
Of course you could make Dreadnoughts work. If they were 10 points each, you'd see them all the time. Most problems with game balance can be handled with points values. Handling it that way doesn't make the mini work the way it should in the background (it doesn't fix the "feel"), but it can fix the table representation problem.

---

Vehicle AV represents a combination of Toughness and armor save.

Armor can represent armor, while Toughness represents the durability of the internal components. Even if a Marine is wearing tank armor, their insides are still squishier than a car's engine block.

The paradigm I've put forward before has most vehicles sitting at T6 or T7, with armor by facing:

AV10 -> 5+
AV11 -> 4+
AV12 -> 3+
AV13 -> 2+
AV14 -> 1+ (1s always fail)

---

I can't see a reason to cap stats at 10 any more. Destroyer weapons should be able to cleanly fit in the S11 S12 and S13 categories.

I'd want Instant Death to go to something more like "+1 on the damage chart if your Strength is at least 3 higher than the opponent's Touhness, and an additional +1 on the chart for each point of Strength thereafter". Power Fists should move to S+4 rather than Sx2 (Scorpion's Claw excepted) to keep the same effect for DCCWs despite lifting the Strength cap. Multi-wound models should all use a damage chart of some kind (let's avoid the cases where a Chimera can be one-shotted by a lascannon but a Hive Guard cannot). I'd want a pair of damage charts; a simplified one for units of multi-wound models (1-4 is nothing, 5 is lose another wound, 6+ is lose another wound and roll again) and a more complicated one for MCs and single vehicles and super-heavies (1-3 is nothing, 4 is weapon damage, 5 is motive system damage, 6+ is lose another wound and roll again).

These things as a package would allow the charts to scale up more or less organically as big things interact with other big things. The "scope" problem strikes me as a result of too many bandaids over arbitrary exceptions that don't need to exist. You can simply take the shackles off of the core mechanics and let it scale up far higher.

---

A Carnifex starts at 3 Attacks (up to 4 if it goes gunless). So against a basic Dreadnought where both minis have one gun, a Carnifex is hitting on 4s and "wounding" on 3s with 3 Attacks while sitting on 4 Wounds while its opponent is hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s while sitting on 3 "wounds". A Carnifex is more expensive (30-40 points more with a gun, as in this example). The new Marines add another 2 Attacks base to a Dreadnought, bringing it from 2 to 4. A Carnifex doesn't have to deal with the vehicle damage chart. A Dreadnought doesn't have to worry about synapse. There are a variety of other disparities that are irrelevant for this example but I'm sure will be hashed out fully by the time this thread runs its course.

Tyranid MCs are designed to be bad at close combat for their price and size. Most lose to a Riptide in a straight-up fight, and that mini is plainly designed to be bad at close combat. Don't ask me why so many Tyranids are bad at close combat relative to other models of their price and size (I can only guess), but there it is.